The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Current Events Archive (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/)
-   -   The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 4: April-June 2021 (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f166/the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex-and-family-news-and-events-4-april-june-2021-a-48523.html)

US Royal Watcher 05-03-2021 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2396384)
And he said that he had "ONLY" taken the Netflix deal when he was told the taxpayers in the UK or Canada would not pay his security and his father would no longer help him financially... So it makes you wonder how Harry really expected to make a living when he took on a pretty massive house. Was Charles expected to hand out even more than he had done when Harry was a working royal? Will Netflix's money fil the gap? Will Harry stil think it is beneath his dignity as a Prince to earn money?

I believe he moved to California and bought the house after the Canadians withdrew their offer of taxpayer funded security and they were negotiating with Netflix and Spotify. in my opinion, the plan - such as it was - was to live in Canada with security at no cost to him and live off Charles, with additional money from the speaker's circuit, ngo boards, etc... What caused the huge upset is that he realized that he wouldn't be able to afford security without making a LOT of money. They've found a way to do that.

The question is how long they will be able attract these types of deals in the future. Harry will be the son and brother of the future Kings, which will give him a lot of visibility. What remains to be seen is whether that visibility can be monetized without going completely commercial.

Denville 05-03-2021 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betsypaige (Post 2396386)
Ironic.....or maybe not, since I imagine Harry knows that.

Iíve never liked talking about anyoneís finances, and I donít begrudge where Harry or anyone else in the BRF got their money from, but as long as he made it a public issue....

Im sure he does, but it suits his narrative to say that Diana "knew he wold need money" and left it to him, while his fahter meanly refused him money...

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher (Post 2396393)
I believe he moved to California and bought the house after the Canadians withdrew their offer of taxpayer funded security and they were negotiating with Netflix and Spotify. in my opinion, the plan - such as it was - was to live in Canada with security at no cost to him and live off Charles, with additional money from the speaker's circuit, ngo boards, etc... What caused the huge upset is that he realized that he wouldn't be able to afford security without making a LOT of money. They've found a way to do that.

The question is how long they will be able attract these types of deals in the future. Harry will be the son and brother of the future Kings, which will give him a lot of visibility. What remains to be seen is whether that visibility can be monetized without going completely commercial.

I wonder how well they worked out the plan.. but if they were thinking of "We'lll live in Canada where we have free security, and life is cheaper, get an allowance from Dad, and hop over ot the US for a bit of money making, until we have saved up a bit and can afford a nice big house in LA" they were obviously planning on leading the life of Riley, at other people's expense.
I just wonder how on earth he will make a lot of money. Really, I dont know how things like Netflix works but are Net going to hand him over large sums of money for "idea about a documentary on Invictus" or "programme about My Mum" or whatever they have in mind?
Is his name enough to earn the kind of money he will need for a large mortgage, expensive security, expensive lifestyle..?

Alison H 05-03-2021 01:47 PM

The alternative, as US Royal Watcher said, is to go completely commercial. "Prince Harry, the Queen's grandson, never buys his burgers and fries anywhere else" or "Prince Harry, the Queen's grandson, always uses AN brand of toilet cleaner" is going to get a bit awkward! The Peter Phillips milk advert was bad enough. I don't know how Netflix work either, but it would be nice if the Invictus documentaries did well: it's a very worthy cause. I just don't know if people want to watch programmes about worthy causes.

HighGoalHighDreams 05-03-2021 01:59 PM

Back in the days before e-books, when biographies about the royals were relatively few and far between (as opposed to now, when anyone, it seems, can pass off as a royal expert and get one printed virtually)- does anyone remember going to buy the hardback copies of biographies of William and Harry, or other royals?

Anyway, that story about Harry at Charles's 50th was a well-worn one, included, I believe in most if not all of those biographies written about Harry as a young man. The earliest I personally remember reading it was in Diana's Boys, which was written in 2001-- notably, about a year before the press narrative of Harry flipped from "small child" to "rogue teenager."

This was also a time when hard-print biographies contained new information that you couldn't just look up online and the contents weren't immediately dumped online for consumption afterward.

Queen Ester 05-03-2021 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by US Royal Watcher (Post 2396393)
I believe he moved to California and bought the house after the Canadians withdrew their offer of taxpayer funded security and they were negotiating with Netflix and Spotify. in my opinion, the plan - such as it was - was to live in Canada with security at no cost to him and live off Charles, with additional money from the speaker's circuit, ngo boards, etc... What caused the huge upset is that he realized that he wouldn't be able to afford security without making a LOT of money. They've found a way to do that.

The question is how long they will be able attract these types of deals in the future. Harry will be the son and brother of the future Kings, which will give him a lot of visibility. What remains to be seen is whether that visibility can be monetized without going completely commercial.

Not in California, movie business is just that a business, which values brains and ideas above the royal title.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2396401)
I wonder how well they worked out the plan.. but if they were thinking of "We'lll live in Canada where we have free security, and life is cheaper, get an allowance from Dad, and hop over ot the US for a bit of money making, until we have saved up a bit and can afford a nice big house in LA" they were obviously planning on leading the life of Riley, at other people's expense.
I just wonder how on earth he will make a lot of money. Really, I dont know how things like Netflix works but are Net going to hand him over large sums of money for "idea about a documentary on Invictus" or "programme about My Mum" or whatever they have in mind?
Is his name enough to earn the kind of money he will need for a large mortgage, expensive security, expensive lifestyle..?

I don't think so, there are so many documentaries about Diana, that unless he has something private and exclusive, Netflix will not pay for another documentary about Diana

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2396403)
The alternative, as US Royal Watcher said, is to go completely commercial. "Prince Harry, the Queen's grandson, never buys his burgers and fries anywhere else" or "Prince Harry, the Queen's grandson, always uses AN brand of toilet cleaner" is going to get a bit awkward! The Peter Phillips milk advert was bad enough. I don't know how Netflix work either, but it would be nice if the Invictus documentaries did well: it's a very worthy cause. I just don't know if people want to watch programmes about worthy causes.

I doubt it, people are tired of being preached to, everyone is having a hard time, out of work, Covid, etc., they want to watch a happy ending melodrama

Heavs 05-03-2021 02:40 PM

The Sussexes have now admitted to having meetings with Quibi in early 2019 so it was false that they only went with "the streamers" because Charles and the taxpayer cut Harry off. They were still holding meetings about potential projects when they were in Canada.

So whilst that didn't come to anything it seems that they may have wanted Charles/taxpayers to continue funding their biggest expense (after the 16 bathrooms) whilst they spent their "streamer" money on all the other things celebrity philanthropists need and are simply trying to put the blame on Charles for "making" them do Netflix.

Or else once talks ended with Quibi but before Netflix/Spotify started they thought "well Daddy will pay for everything then whilst we just do alternative, political version of the BRF things." And got a rude awakening.

But the announcement was full of the much talked about "financial independence" and they were in talks before they left so they planned to make deals somehow but probably didn't expect that "independence" meant just that.

lirienn 05-03-2021 02:43 PM

The concert thing was so tacky.
The Las Vegas style letters "Prince Harry" is milking the royal connections to the extreme. It's his only brand.

Queen Ester 05-03-2021 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lirienn (Post 2396418)
The concert thing was so tacky.
The Las Vegas style letters "Prince Harry" is milking the royal connections to the extreme. It's his only brand.

is there a video? I missed it, thanks

lirienn 05-03-2021 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Queen Ester (Post 2396422)
is there a video? I missed it, thanks

There is! Sorry for directing you to DM but here you go:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...oncert-LA.html
The speech is here. Very Hollywood-like it's literally the opposite of being a royal.

Alison H 05-03-2021 03:57 PM

Teenagers do silly things! In fact, didn't someone say recently - I think on the Princess Leonor discussion? - that it's going to be very difficult for the coming generation of royals. Not that I think any of them are likely to dance naked on the lawn or anything, but even something like staggering out of a nightclub drunk is likely to be filmed and posted all over the internet.


I hate to promote stereotypes, but nude pranks do tend to be associated with upper-class teenagers at posh boarding schools. The rest of us would never have had the confidence or the lack of inhibitions!! But they're just silly pranks: I don't think they say anything particularly significant about the people involved.

Sandy345 05-03-2021 04:11 PM

I never heard the "Harry story." The only thing I heard was William and Harry put on a show of the "Full Monty" on Charles' birthday. Not the "nude" Harry story.

Denville 05-03-2021 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alison H (Post 2396403)
The alternative, as US Royal Watcher said, is to go completely commercial. "Prince Harry, the Queen's grandson, never buys his burgers and fries anywhere else" or "Prince Harry, the Queen's grandson, always uses AN brand of toilet cleaner" is going to get a bit awkward! The Peter Phillips milk advert was bad enough. I don't know how Netflix work either, but it would be nice if the Invictus documentaries did well: it's a very worthy cause. I just don't know if people want to watch programmes about worthy causes.

I dont think they do either.. and he IS going "completely commercial"....

Denville 05-03-2021 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams (Post 2396404)
Back in the days before e-books, when biographies about the royals were relatively few and far between (as opposed to now, when anyone, it seems, can pass off as a royal expert and get one printed virtually)- does anyone remember going to buy the hardback copies of biographies of William and Harry, or other royals?

Anyway, that story about Harry at Charles's 50th was a well-worn one, included, I believe in most if not all of those biographies written about Harry as a young man. The earliest I personally remember reading it was in Diana's Boys, which was written in 2001-- notably, about a year before the press narrative of Harry flipped from "small child" to "rogue teenager."

This was also a time when hard-print biographies contained new information that you couldn't just look up online and the contents weren't immediately dumped online for consumption afterward.

I haven't read any biographies of Harry, just bits of some.. Yet in the bits that I've read/seen in the papers, I've come across the story - so I assume it probably happened. And In one bio I looked at a while ago, it had a bit about the Vegas nudie party, and said something about army parties which included something called "Naked Bar" which again involved drinking and getting naked.. so I am guessing that Harry and his mates liked to strip off at drinking parties.. - which is Ok if they keep it private... and are lads..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandy345 (Post 2396439)
I never heard the "Harry story." The only thing I heard was William and Harry put on a show of the "Full Monty" on Charles' birthday. Not the "nude" Harry story.

That's odd because that's where the "nude Harry" story originates. That they were supposed to do a take on that film and Harry didn't stop at stripping to his underwear

Royalist.in.NC 05-03-2021 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2396401)
I wonder how well they worked out the plan.. but if they were thinking of "We'lll live in Canada where we have free security, and life is cheaper, get an allowance from Dad, and hop over ot the US for a bit of money making, until we have saved up a bit and can afford a nice big house in LA" they were obviously planning on leading the life of Riley, at other people's expense.
I just wonder how on earth he will make a lot of money. Really, I dont know how things like Netflix works but are Net going to hand him over large sums of money for "idea about a documentary on Invictus" or "programme about My Mum" or whatever they have in mind?
Is his name enough to earn the kind of money he will need for a large mortgage, expensive security, expensive lifestyle..?

I for one cannot see it lasting. I do hope they have solid financial advisors.:whistling:

Denville 05-03-2021 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heavs (Post 2396415)
The Sussexes have now admitted to having meetings with Quibi in early 2019 so it was false that they only went with "the streamers" because Charles and the taxpayer cut Harry off. They were still holding meetings about potential projects when they were in Canada.

So whilst that didn't come to anything it seems that they may have wanted Charles/taxpayers to continue funding their biggest expense (after the 16 bathrooms) whilst they spent their "streamer" money on all the other things celebrity philanthropists need and are simply trying to put the blame on Charles for "making" them do Netflix.

Or else once talks ended with Quibi but before Netflix/Spotify started they thought "well Daddy will pay for everything then whilst we just do alternative, political version of the BRF things." And got a rude awakening.

But the announcement was full of the much talked about "financial independence" and they were in talks before they left so they planned to make deals somehow but probably didn't expect that "independence" meant just that.

Im sure they've been putting out feelers for private money making opportunities for some time, probably well before they left royal life.. but they intended this to be extra stuff on top of money that they got from the taxpayer for security and money from Charles. they would have a secure income, and anything else they earned would be jam on the bread... but I think when they did move, their primary desire was to make sure that they had the basic income from C and the free security from the Canadian or British govt... And it was when both Charles and the Can govt pulled the rug from under them they had to hurry and get some kind of a deal... as they were suddenly scared that they had no security, noone was going to give them a hand out and they had to get some money making deal...

Mbruno 05-03-2021 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lirienn (Post 2396418)
The concert thing was so tacky.
The Las Vegas style letters "Prince Harry" is milking the royal connections to the extreme. It's his only brand.


I suppose that is what Harry craves though. I mean, the Las Vegas-style neon lights and being the center of attention so to speak. Something he could never have if he stayed in the UK as a sidekick working royal who would be increasingly overshadowed by the Cambridge family.

Royalist.in.NC 05-03-2021 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lirienn (Post 2396418)
The concert thing was so tacky.
The Las Vegas style letters "Prince Harry" is milking the royal connections to the extreme. It's his only brand.

I think him doing a speech to draw attention to the cause was fine. However, the PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX in lights was tacky but proclaimed the truth now: celebrity not royal. I donít see why he doesnít go by Prince Harry but dropping Sussex would leave Meg out in the cold.;)

duchessrachel 05-03-2021 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 2395871)
Sometimes the anger is not being angry *at* anything but a deep rooted dissatisfaction that life isn't perfect and the anger is expressed at a multitude of various things that just happen to be in life's path at the moment. It could be issues from the past, incidents that happen in the here and now and also fear of what's to come in the future. This is what I meant when I said I see uncertainty in Harry these days. I don't know what to think about Meghan. Is she playing into these uncertainties like a poked mama bear or is she unsure of what's to come too.

The bottom line is that if he really wanted out and away from royal life and he got what he wanted (which he did when they moved to California), there wouldn't be any need for him to be angry about things. He'd be breathing a huge sigh of relief and be the happy go lucky master of the mansion sitting poolside with his iced tea with the lemon slice and the cute little umbrella. The fact that there are resentments that have come out all over the place tells me that things aren't that they appear to be in LaLaLand with the solutions being as clear as a mud puddle.

The fact that this couple keeps making sure that the public is informed of each and every little detail that happens in their lives, to me, means they're screaming for attention and validation from outside sources. People secure in their own skins don't feel this kind of a need and just get on with life.

Exactly, especially since H & M said they were leaving as working Royals partly because they wanted privacy.

Queen Ester 05-03-2021 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC (Post 2396473)
I think him doing a speech to draw attention to the cause was fine. However, the PRINCE HARRY, DUKE OF SUSSEX in lights was tacky but proclaimed the truth now: celebrity not royal. I donít see why he doesnít go by Prince Harry but dropping Sussex would leave Meg out in the cold.;)

Did they get paid for the appearance?

duchessrachel 05-03-2021 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denville (Post 2396443)
I dont think they do either.. and he IS going "completely commercial"....

Is there anything Queen Elizabeth can do to stop commercialization of the Royal Family? I think I remember the Sussexes not commercializing their royal connections being part of the agreement made at the Summit they had, but it does not look like the Sussexes are abiding by it.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises